Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STLC05554 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC05554, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05554 Hearing Date: April 24, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff The Hinds Law Group, APC

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Truth of All Matters Specified in Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted, as to Defendant California Company, LLC is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $556.65.

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Defendant Frontline Medical Associates is CONTINUED to MAY 24, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of April 20, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 20, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff The Hinds Law Group, APC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants California Company (“California Company”) and Frontline Medical Associates (“Frontline”), (collectively “Defendants”).

On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint, correcting Defendant California Company’s name to California Company, LLC.

On October 13, 2022, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.

On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Defendants California Company and Frontline. On February 14, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion as it improperly combined four motions to compel discovery responses into one motion. (2-14-23 Minute Order.)

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motions:

1) Motion to Deem Truth of All Matters Specified in Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted, served on Defendant California Company, LLC (Deem re: Cal.), scheduled for April 24, 2023.

2) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Defendant Frontline (“MTC re: Frontline), scheduled for April 26, 2023.

No opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond. The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) Since such motion is in response to failure to respond, there is no requirement to meet and confer prior to moving to deem the requests for admission admitted. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.). By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).)

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020(a), 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

III. Discussion

A. Motion to Deem as to Defendant California Company

Plaintiff moves for a Court order deeming the truth of matters specified in Request for Admission, Set One, served on Defendant California Company, LLC, admitted. (Deem re: Cal., pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,051.65. (Ibid. at p. 2.) Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default against Defendant CA. (Ibid.)

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff served Request for Admissions (Set One) on Defendant California Company via email to defense counsel. (Deem re: Cal. – Hinds Decl. ¶ 2, Exs. A-B.) Responses were due on or before November 30, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 3.) Defendant did not serve any responses. (Ibid.) On December 11, 2022, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel’s email. (Ibid. at ¶ 4, Exs. C-D.) As of the date of the Motion, Defendant has not provided any responses, and thus, “Plaintiff is unable to proceed with meaningful discovery.” (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has propounded requests for admission on Defendant California Company and Defendant has not served any responses. The Court cannot enter default as Defendant has filed an Answer. However, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion and Deems the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) as to Defendant California Company, admitted.

B. Motion to Compel as to Defendant Frontline

Having reviewed the moving papers for Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Defendant Frontline, the Court cannot discern the nature of Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff is requesting that the Court deem the truth of all matters specified in Form Interrogatories, Set One, admitted, or alternatively, an order compelling Defendant Frontline to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One. (MTC re: Frontline, pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff then cites to legal authority which pertains to Requests for Admission. (Ibid. at pp. 4-5.) In his declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel refers to Requests for Admission being served on Defendant Frontline and attaches both Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatories to the Motion. (Hinds Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff also attached a meet and confer letter regarding Requests for Admission served on Frontline. (Ibid. at ¶ 4, Ex. C.)

As the Court cannot determine the nature of Plaintiff’s request, it cannot make a ruling on the Motion. The hearing on the Motion is CONTINUED. Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers clarifying the nature of its request and filing supporting papers pertaining to that request.

C. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct. Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Furthermore, courts are obligated to impose monetary sanctions in cases where a “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Ibid.) Sanctions are calculated based on “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Ibid. § 2023.030(a)).

Plaintiff requests the following monetary sanctions for each Motion.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,051.65 for the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted as to California Company, as follows: two (2) hours to prepare the Motion, at a billing rate of $495.00 per hour, plus filing fees of $61.65. (Deem re Cal., Hinds Decl. ¶ 7.)

Given that Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem is granted, the Court must also grant Plaintiff’s request for reasonable sanctions. The Court finds Plaintiff’s billing rate and amount of time expended on the Motion excessive. The Court grants sanctions in the amount of $556.65 for one (1) hour to prepare the Motion, at a billing rate of $495.00, and $61.65 in costs.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,051.65 for the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Defendant Frontline as follows: two (2) hours to prepare the Motion, at a billing rate of $495 per hour, plus filing fees of $61.65. (MTC re: Frontline, Hinds Decl. ¶ 7.)

Given that the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Defendant Frontline is continued, the matter of monetary sanctions will be determined at the next hearing.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.